Livestock: is it boon or
bane for rural Minnesota?
Posted 1/2/03

Editorís note: The following commentary is from Jim Salfer, regional educator at St. Cloud with the University of Minnesota Extension Service:

Livestock have been a part of farming and a human food source since cave dwellers started domesticating wild animals for food. Today, however, some folks see livestock as an environmental problem and large livestock operations as a threat to the social structure of rural Minnesota. Conversely, supporters cite livestock as rural Minnesota's best value-added industry and an important source of jobs.

Arguments among rural residents in favor of or against livestock often become heated and emotional. Following is a discussion of some of the basic issues and some perspectives from relevant research.

--Livestock manure and water pollution. Many people believe that livestock around our lakes and rivers increase the risk of pollution. But research shows the opposite to be true. University of Nebraska scientists summarized all of the research across the country examining the effects of manure application on nutrient runoff and soil loss. There were 16 trials, including four from Minnesota. These trials showed that nutrient runoff was reduced from 2-62 percent and soil loss was reduced from 15-65 percent by the application of manure. The research also showed that runoff and soil losses declined as manure application rates increased.

The research indicates that if manure is handled properly it reduces the risk of water pollution. The scientists believe this is because the manure improves the organic matter content and physical property of the soil.

--Livestock odor. There is obviously odor associated with livestock. However, with the newer manure-hauling equipment and incorporation of manure into the soil, the strong odor is usually limited to times when pumping and hauling are going on.

Some people believe it is their right to live in a rural agricultural area without the smell of livestock next door. While this may be true, a case could also be made that livestock producers have the right to make decisions that allow them to reach their personal and business goals. This may mean expanding their business. And farmers who can't stay in the livestock business may be able to sell to land or housing developers.

--Diversified land use and erosion protection. Livestock, especially those that graze, tend to increase crop diversity. When cows leave a farm it generally becomes a cash crop farm producing mostly corn and soybeans, regardless of the slope of the land. The land mix is no longer likely to include small grains, alfalfa and pasture. Without these soil covers, heavy rains can cause large gullies and extensive soil erosion that reduces water quality in lakes and streams.

--Economic development. Livestock increase local economic activity. University of Minnesota research has shown that dairy producers tend to buy more of their inputs and personal items closer to home than non-livestock producers do. Every 1000 dairy cows generate about $2.83 million in cash flow. Farm business management records show that the typical central Minnesota farm family spends over $327,000 annually, with most of that spent in the local community.

--Livestock numbers and land area for manure. The amount of land needed for manure application is sometimes cited as a concern. In 1997 we did a comprehensive evaluation of the mix of crops, animal numbers and the nutrient requirements of crops. Stearns County has by far the most livestock of any Minnesota county. However, the evaluation showed all the manure in Stearns County only provides about 28 pounds of nitrogen per acre of land in crops that use nitrogen (corn, potatoes, oats, etc.). Typically, crops need 100-150 pounds of nitrogen per acre for good yields. Thus, all of the manure can potentially provide only about 20 percent of the nitrogen needed by the crops. The numbers are similar for counties surrounding Stearns County.

--Co-existence of a large human population with livestock. Lancaster County, Pa. has about 470,000 people and a population density of 496 people per square mile. Stearns County, Minn. has about 133,000 people and a population density of 106 people per square mile. Both counties have high livestock numbers. Data from the two counties shows that livestock and people can live and thrive together.